E!!

Frankly, I don’t see why there is such a debate over this. Ryan Jerz is himself a moron for calling free market capitalists everywhere morons.

“yet another financial barrier to getting information that’s supposedly important to societies”

What the hell is he talking about? A financial barrier to getting information that is important to society? Ryan is putting the value of the information above the people who worked to get it while at the same time seemingly supporting their potential financial hardship.

There is no barrier, and there is no right to reap the rewards of another person’s hard work. What a very socialist thing to say.

The fact of the matter is that the journalists, newspapers, and magazines in question have a product. A product they design, develop, create, market, and publish with their own funds. It is theirs to do with as they wish. Their product does not belong to ’society.’ Any claim otherwise is a perversion of our nation’s founding, and common sense. The only time we are entitled to someone else’s product is if we funded it. Usually via taxes I might add. Do we really want free access to information if the only way to get it would be for the government to tax us in order to cover the costs? Let’s not be naive here either. If the government makes newspapers a taxpayer funded bureaucracy … they WILL control content.

Now that we’ve established how utterly juvenile the notion that you are entitled to someone else’s property for free is … we need not despair.

Naturally, we all would like to get as much free information as we can. Humans are selfish, and that isn’t a bad thing. With that said … the free market will ultimately decide who is right.

Some papers will try to charge for content … others will provide free content while raising revenue from advertising. Many will ultimately try both. The free content site will be annoying with multiple pop ups and harrassments that will frustrate all of us. The only way to get around the annoyances would be to buy a membership to gain access to content. That route is a win win. Ultimately, you the customer, will have the choice.

The free market is perfect when left alone. Newspapers that can’t raise the revenue needed to continue operations via charging for content will fail. Same goes for those who provide free content, but can’t raise enough from advertisements. Some of them who do one or the other will succeed. At the end of the day we’ll have a more stable news industry as the weaklings are weeded out, and you will have your choice of whether paying for content is ultimately worth it.

Ayn Rand: “The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principal: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return.”

Capitalism mandates that the individual which produces goods, ideas, and services from his own effort and labor has the RIGHT to enjoy the fruit of it and it is up to him to determine the method of trade he will accept.

It is immoral to ask him to share these prodcuts for the sake of an ambiguous, intangible ’society’ that contributes nothing in exchange. What is it that ’society’ has provided to these online news publishers that justifies their claim to the result? Nothing.

It is tribalism and herd mentalities that leads to this call for the ’social good’ and ’social need’ and it is contrary to individualism and freedom.

I think the larger point Ryan was getting at is that the internet is all about the free exchange of ideas. Any publisher of on-line news can stop publishing for free anytime they want. So why don’t they? It can only be because they too receive a benefit. Increased readership, or market share lead to other income streams.

Take Matt Drudge as an example. He started a news gathering site and offered it for free. This eventually led to a book, a TV show, and a radio show before he chose to retire. His site is still free with no annoying pop-ups. He used his site as a form of advertising.

The only problem newspapers have is their inability to see what is happening. Is it our problem that their product is obsolete? I don’t think so.

Far from being anti-individualism, a free internet promotes individual thought. As for anti-capitalist, what could be more capitalist than adapt or die.

I can’t figure out why this keeps coming back to this free market business. The market is already free, and it’s not looking good for newspapers.

Casey, did you read what I wrote? Because if you did you should have been able to see that I am not insisting that newspapers make their hard work available for free because of any mandate, other than that of the market. You say that these journalists, newspapers, magazines and whatever should be compensated for their hard work. Blah blah. This is stuff that, if you’re paying attention, you could see is happening WITHOUT newspapaers and magazines every single day. Welcome to the internet.

And therein lies my point. News happens with or without papers. I’m not advocating, in any way shape or form, that the government step in and demand news organizations to make their wares available for free. But the people of society should. There is a difference. If the news organizations can’t figure out a way to make the rent, then it’s not my problem. I invest my time in covering the few things I cover annually and make nothing from it. So do countless others across the world. If you want to take an even that is part of the public domain (a city council meeting, for instance) and put it behind a paid firewall, I happen to think you’re evil.

A greater missed point is that this was an exercise in thought. The post that Casey didn’t read was based on a lot of assumptions, and was not intended to turn into a debate on the merits of paying for news. That one is being debated all over the place (hint: it’s not going to work–ever). I spent my time debating that and thinking of new models and it’s not for me. The real point was to think over whether IF the internet was ever declared a human right and IF news organizations were able to make it by charging for their freely-available-elsewhere content, then was that a RESPONSIBLE position for news organizations to hold. Is it?

I forgot one thing. Casey, the financial barrier was not a barrier for the people collecting the information. The barrier was referring to the fact that all humans can not afford to pay for access to web sites, just as all humans can’t access the internet now because f cost. Making it a human right would remove the barrier of getting online, but the addition of the cost to getting news was the basis for my post.

I haven’t read Ryan’s original post yet, but I trust your synopsis of his point, E, and I think he starts from a faulty assumption if he supposes that information is free (or, as the libertarian hackers used to say) wants to be free.

I can can the web editions of various newspapers without paying for a subscription to those papers, but I’m certainly paying an Internet Service Provider.

Another angle too little discussed is whether information is proportional to knowledge. I have my doubts. The founding fathers were well-read, and Thomas Paine was one of many pamphleteers, but the MSN and Yahoo portals probably publish more in a week than many people in the 18th century would have read in a lifetime. Which is not to say that we’re better-educated than our forebears were, because in many respects, we’re not.

Information gathering requires time and resources. Time and resources are not free. When people talk about the “free exchange of ideas,” it’s not in an eonomic sense– they just mean discourse unfettered by legal or political pressure to conform to any given point of view. That kind of freedom is great, but necessarily limited.

The internet is an amazing, life altering thing. It has enebled the delviery of vast amounts of information to millions of eager learners. However, many, especially spoiled MTV-generation children, expect everything to be fast and free. In my opinion newspapers have every right to charge for content *if the market demands it.*

If banner ads generate enough revenue for online newspapers, that’s great. Traffic will be determined by the perceived value of content. This is the same for real newspapers, right?

If I owned an online paper and wanted to generate revenue beyond physical subscriptions I would offer pay accounts oniine $0.25 per logon (good until 3am). Another option would be to charge from $0.01 t0 $0.05 per article.

There are many possibilities in a FREE MARKET world.

1) There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and that includes information.
2) The AP has announced a joint venture w/4 non-profit journalistic outfits,to distribute their work product to AP subscribers
3) Two Maine Newspapers (Ellsworth American and Village Soup Inc.) are innovating info revenue models of their own.
4) I don’t know why anyone would think that information/news delivery would be a “right”. I am more than willing to pay for value; nothing is free, anywhere.

Ryan, I read your post. Your attempt to deflect what you wrote in your own piece will not change the substance of your argument. You clearly stated in your original post that you do not believe any “news organizations should charge for access.” While at the same time calling those who believe it to be the right of the business to charge “morons.” Whether it be a Freudian slip, or what have you, you attacked the free market.

There have been two issues at debate over this thing: should we charge to gain access to the internet, and should news agencies charge for their content … the answer to both is yes. Perhaps you were intending to go in a different direction with your post than you did, but you wrote what you wrote. It ultimately is up to the news agency to charge or not. Some will survive … some won’t.

There should be no forcible restriction to access beyond the ability of the customer to pay. If that was your intended argument … we agree. However, under no circumstance should free internet access be given to anyone unless the private company decides that’s the service they wish to provide. Same goes for news agencies. Especially since all people in the US have free access to the internet via the library system.

I also wanted to apologize to Elizabeth, whom I respect greatly, for using the word moron. I only did so in response to someone calling others morons.

Casey, what is your role at KXNT? Could that be clouding judgment in the case of news organizations charging for access to content? If I remember correctly, you’re the producer on the afternoon local show or the host (I spent a week there listening to the station in February). I think being a stakeholder (and someone who stands to lose out on cash when more free content becomes available) takes from your credibility. In short, you’ll be facing more and more competition, which I’m sure is fine, but certainly doesn’t make things any easier.

I disagree both that charging is acceptable and that it’s an attack on the free market. I’m simply saying that it’s a moronic move to think it’s viable. Period. If consumers demand to look at your ads without also paying a subscription price, that’s the right of the consumers. An attack on the free market it’s not.

If any news organization wants to charge, then they deserve the oblivion they’ll be cast into. That was hardly the point of my post, although I have no problem arguing the merits of new models for news organizations survival. I have a little experience in trying to figure that out. Basically, nobody knows, and with all that’s free, you’d be a moron (seriously) to start charging now. Good luck if that’s the road you take.

Now, the real question is ASSUMING the internet is a human right (kind of like roads, the airwaves, and lawyers to defend you), isn’t it irresponsible for news organizations to charge for the information that will make those people better citizens? For some crazy reason, though, I think I already know your answer.